Friday, May 27, 2011
There is absolute no point in proceeding with a re-trial in the case of Nat fraser vs H M Advocate because the Crown Office has completely ruined it
It seems that the Crown Office has wobbled on the case of Nat Fraser.
Easily understandable, people are looking in their direction because they withheld evidence in a criminal prosecution.
Nat Fraser should waste no time filing a complaint of misconduct in public office against them.
And that is one charge that will stick.
Because it was done deliberately!
So, down at the Crown Office under the new ‘Team Mulholland’ they are trying to figure out if they have a reasonable chance of convincing the public a trial is in the public interest.
Nat Fraser cannot be given a fair trial in Scotland; the Crown Office cleared the pitch for that by their actions.
But they might have a go because politicians are looking at this, and they might feel they have no choice. This case has gone from a simple legal case to a ‘celebrity’ case due to the nature of the UK Supreme Court decision and involvement of politicians.
There are various aspects to this case, leaving aside the trial and conviction; the main issue is the conduct of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal.
So far no politician has called for an investigation into their misconduct while in public office.
And that is a serious charge indeed because the integrity of the Crown Office has been breached.
That is the elephant in the room that politicians are running away from.
They want this to be all about the ‘threat’ to the independence of Scottish legal system and in the next breath blurt out about having direct access to the European Court.
You can’t have it both ways.
The UK Supreme Court hasn’t interfered with the independence of Scottish Justice, they were not re-running the trial but rather they looked at the breach of Nat Fraser’s Article Six rights to a fair trial.
No politician has come on tv and said Fraser got a fair trial, only that he was convicted.
To say he had is to enter a minefield both legal and political.
A Scottish Government spokesman said:
“The UK Supreme Court should have no role in matters of Scots criminal law, a view supported by Scotland’s leading legal figures, including the then Lord Advocate, who set out the detailed case at the Scotland Bill Committee of the damage being done to the integrity of the Scots legal system by the UK Supreme Court. The issue is not human rights; it is that the distinct Scottish legal system should have direct access to the European Court in Strasbourg just like every other legal jurisdiction.”
So, it is okay for the European Court of Human Rights to circumvent the independence of the Scottish legal system but not the UK Supreme Court in London who have jurisdiction to rule on matters of human rights which the Fraser case exposes.
I go with the weight of legal opinion such as Brian Scott.
Human rights lawyer John Scott said:
“Scottish lawyers I know are not frightened of the Supreme Court and welcome its oversight in these matters. In reality, the High Court in Scotland, the appeal court, has demonstrated it is all too prepared to sit back on its laurels.”
Which begs the questions;
Why did the Appeal Court not do its job properly?
Why did the Appeal Court feel that it was acceptable for the Crown Office to withhold evidence?
Why did the Appeal Court dismiss the human rights breach of the accused as meaningless?
It comes back to a theme of this blog, Scotland is a corrupt country.
And Holyrood should be sorting out these problems.
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University